Talk:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film)/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Bluesphere in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Bluesphere (talk · contribs) 15:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll take over this GA review. After a thorough examination of the article, here's what I have to say about it.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Everything's fine here.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The lead doesn't provide a summary about the film's production stage. There should be at least an overview on how did the process in making this film come about. Also, the lead doesn't have to be supported with references as they are cited elsewhere in the article.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- There are a decent amount of dead refs; six to be exact. I also notice seven refs (cite 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are not using inline citations.
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- I notice cite #6 was retrieved from IMDb. WP:CITEIMDB warns editors on citing this website since, like Wikipedia, it's a user-generated website. Cite #8 is retrieved from BuzzFeed. Buzzfeed appears to be a venue for self-publishing and a trivia blog, thus unreliable.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Lots of unreferenced claims, with the "Production" section being one of them. This is a red flag for possible original research. As you can see in the "critical reception" subsection, one claim is even tagged as unsourced.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- 28.6% confidence according to the copyvio detector. So we're good here.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Not really sure since these claims Prisoner of Azkaban earned notable critical acclaim and is often regarded by fans and critics as the best film in the franchise. as well as Despite its successful box office run, Azkaban is the lowest-grossing Harry Potter film (all the others have grossed more than US$875 million worldwide) and the lowest-grossing film of J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World Series. are unsourced.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- While I thoroughly examined the article for this review, I noticed in the article's edit history that you are not a main contributor to it. I would like to gently remind you good article best practices: "While anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, it is highly preferable that nominators have contributed significantly and are familiar with the article's subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." But you're in luck because this will give you an opportunity to fix the issues raised in the article. But for now, this is a fail. There's just a decent amount of work need to be done for this to be put on hold. Please do not let this discourage you and keep up the hard work. Thank you. Bluesphere 15:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
